Outdoors: A truce needed on gun rights

Tuesday

Oct 30, 2012 at 6:00 AMOct 30, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Mark Blazis Outdoors

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Radicals create radical opposition.

Such was the case when antigun activists threatened the hunting and shooting traditions of law-abiding American citizens, underestimating their vast numbers (20 million to 40 million) and potential power.

The National Rifle Association, which no longer focuses on just rifles, not long ago had moderate influence. It was reborn like a phoenix from the flames, ignited by antigun groups who were perceived as a threat to personal protection and American freedom.

The NRA’s first foray into influencing presidential elections was back in 1980, when it backed Ronald Reagan over Jimmy Carter because the latter appointed an opponent of gun rights to a federal judgeship and supported an Alaska Lands Bill that closed massive acreage to hunting. It reportedly spent $10 million in 2008 to prevent President Obama’s election and is now committed more than ever to unseating him.

Richard Nixon, Reagan, George H.W. Bush, even John F. Kennedy were among eight presidential members of the NRA. Not all of them would want to be members today. Ever since the NRA — with a current membership of more than 4 million — amassed considerable public support and political leverage, momentum on gun rights has continued in almost one direction — far right. Antigun forces can partly blame themselves for the overpowering giant they helped create.

The NRA has done much good. Those of us who take our shotguns to the trap range, on deer drives, in the pheasant fields, or enjoy shooting firearms at gun ranges — or who gain peace of mind knowing that we have recourse if a felon threatens our families — forever owe the NRA a debt of gratitude for protecting our Second Amendment rights.

The organization was founded in 1871 by Civil War veterans wanting to improve the skills and readiness of American shooters because the accuracy of Union soldiers had been appalling. Presidents of the association included Gens. Ulysses S. Grant and Philip H. Sheridan, which explains the organization’s affinity for the military.

From 1916 to 1996, the period in which the NRA garnered arguably its most widespread respect, it teamed with the Army in the Civilian Marksmanship Program, helping get obsolete military firearms to civilians to develop shooting skills that could strengthen America in the event of war.

The NRA also has helped provide hunter-safety programs. It supports the National Rifle and Pistol Matches, and the National Muzzle Loading Championships.

It stopped being the governing body for Olympic shooting in 1992, however, and left the National Three-Position Air Rifle Council in 2000. The NRA has become — for better or worse — extremely political, focusing on other targets.

Some argue the organization has contributed significantly to the divisiveness hurting America today. Power can feed on itself and grow out of control. With power should come reason, moderation, restraint and beneficence, but the NRA sees the world as largely black and white. You’re with us, or you’re against us.

For some sportsmen, judging the NRA is tantamount to a blasphemous critique of the church or the Boy Scouts. I’ve had to explain on several occasions why I’ve long been and remain a member of the NRA. That explanation has gotten more complicated and less easily defended.

Only a few local sportsmen complain of the NRA’s constant requests for money, incessant inflammatory and sometimes dubious political assertions, and unrealized prognostications. There is also the money factor.

The NRA has evolved into an enormous nonprofit business. Reportedly taking in annual revenues of $205 million from American hunters and shooters, the NRA has become the most powerful lobbying group in America. The American Institute of Philanthropy reports that NRA CEO Wayne Lapierre’s salary was $970,300, and Kayne Robinson, the executive director of general operations, is reported to have a base salary of $1,027,217. The U.S. president, by comparison, earns $400,000 a year. It pays to inflame us hunters and shooters.

Of course, on the other side are the antigun organizations like the Brady Center, with their well-compensated lawyers and executives earning good salaries from their fearful donators.

The NRA could have, and should have, accepted President Obama’s invitation to sit together to discuss gun-rights legislation in 2011. The organization disappointingly refused the invitation for cooperation.

A powerful executive in the gun industry, one who deals with radicals on both sides of firearms issues, said on condition of anonymity that, “Sensible gun laws aren’t likely any time soon. There are too many paychecks depending on unresolved conflict.”

There may be just too much money and power at stake for reason to prevail in the foreseeable future.

How do we stop the vitriol and get sensible gun laws? Antigun-rights forces need to understand unequivocally that Second Amendment rights must never be taken away, and that the basis for gun violence is not guns, but all the elements that cause social problems — poverty, ignorance, criminality and mental illness. These complex problems can’t be solved by just outlawing firearms.

And sportsmen need to understand that in addition to Second Amendment gun rights, these very same elements must be addressed if we’re to truly ever have safety and freedom in America. That means support of education, health care, and other social efforts that effectively diminish crime and violence.

Without this understanding and a new attitude of cooperation, we can expect the pendulum of animosity to continue swinging extremely, and two American factions to continue fearing each other and dividing America.

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.